In hopes of better enriching an animal's environment to maximize its health and mental well-being, for as long as humans have domesticated and housed animals they have surmised ways to better interpret an animal's behavioral attributes (such as crying, whining, barking, jumping, nudging, etc.) when it is attempting to communicate needs and desires. Research on captive and confined animals has repeatedly shown that increasing an animal's autonomy, opportunity to make choices, and means of effectively communicating its needs creates an enriched environment which promotes emotional and mental well-being and reduces a variety of undesirable behavior. However, many of the techniques used with captive and confined animals have not made the transition to the general consumer with animals living in a home environment even though they too experience similar environmental deficits and demonstrate a wide variety of undesirable behavior such as fears, anxiety, hyperactivity, attention deficits, excessive barking/digging/jumping, attention seeking, destructive behavior, aggression, depression, etc. Because of this, the margin for error in attempts at communication and interpretation between humans and animals cohabitating together is not only stressful and frustrating for the human, it is stressful and frustrating for the animal. No one likes to wait, be misunderstood, or feel restrained, controlled, ignored or alienated—not even animals. And, yet most animals lack a means for initiating clear communication, obtaining emotional and mental stimulation, acting autonomously, and engaging in self-actuated choices in their daily course of life. And, this problem is compounded by the fact that, unfortunately, by design traditional animal obedience training is intended to stifle both autonomy and choice and positions the animal to be the recipient of communication but not the initiator of communication—animals are taught what to do, animals are told when to do it, and animals are expected to obey without exception or choice. This invention provides a means for animals, particularly canines, to demonstrate their untapped aptitude for communication created across tens of thousands of years of selective breeding for it.
The outcome from using the current invention is four-fold. First, this device corrects for these dilemmas by allowing humans and animals to communicate with a new-found level of clarity and cooperation by providing an animal with choice and autonomy by presenting it with a means to initiate communication using its untapped aptitudes and intelligence (not just be the recipient of communicated commands); a “voice” to specifically request its most desired reinforcement using recorded spoken words or sounds and/or using WiFi connectivity to accessory devices; and to do these things without receiving commands from a human. After learning to operate the device, first the animal “thinks it,” then the animal “says it” by selecting and touching or pressing a button. Second, this device provides an animal with improved mental stimulation and control over environmental factors important to it, such as the delivery of food, water, light, sound, toys, access to outside, etc., depending on what WiFi accessories are made available. Third, the device provides humans with a clear medium for better understanding the depth and breadth of an animal's needs, psyche, and personality which in turn not only elevates the human's opinion of the animal's status as an intellectual feeling being, but it changes the way the animal is cared for and treated for the better. Fourth, because the device is WiFi enabled, the animal's preferences and improved status as an intellectual and feeling being can be profiled and shared via online social media and websites and be known to its owner even when they are not together. This expands both the human's and the animal's social networking abilities.
The underpinning that makes the device operable for both animal and human is based on over a century of scientific research on behavioral principles in operant learning, including reinforcement, conditioned reinforcement, shaping procedures, discrimination training, problem solving incidental training issues, skill-based animal training techniques, and a teaching technique called “functional communication training” which is a broadly used and clinically validated technique that helps teach vocally/verbally challenged animals—including autistic children, great apes, and even dolphins—to “speak” in more understandable conventional ways (e.g., pointing, picture exchanging, signing, pressing buttons on a lexigram, etc.) without acting out in behaviorally disruptive ways. For the current invention, operation of the device using the training method herein results in a real behavioral phenomenon for the animal and the human.
Operation of the device creates an opportunity for animal-to-human communication that avoids misunderstanding or confounds between what an animal desires most at any given point in time and the human's ability to understand or interpret that desire and to provide specified reinforcement accordingly. Operation of the device also creates an opportunity for the animal to initiate communication (in contrast to being just the recipient of communication), to make autonomous choices and act independently (in contrast to only being commanded what to do), and to control features of the environment important to the animal when it activates the device (as opposed to being powerless). Operation of the device unlocks an animal's communicative aptitude not previously tapped by traditional means of training and/or interacting with animals. More specifically, because the operation of the current invention depends on an animal's self-actuated behavior-based autonomy and choices, it is enriching and empowering to the animal. Because the operation of the devices results in clearly understood spoken messages and the button-like modalities are identified with affixed visual-tactile lettered words, it improves the human's understanding and interpretation of the animal's needs and desires which in turn may create improved peace of mind, pet caregiving, and feelings of joy and wonder. The end result of using the device is a reduction in stress for both the animal and the human. This reduction in stress provides a foundation for the formulation of an intense interactive and communicative “team effort” bond between a human and animal that is dependent on learning and goes far beyond the “command-obey” relationship created through traditional obedience training. Also, with the WiFi accessory mode enabled, an animal's self-actuated autonomous access to reinforcement when a human is present or absent can help decrease many undesired problem behavior, such as separation anxiety. These things can be of particular importance when introducing an animal into a new context.
Our prototype research using three case study subject canines (hereinafter referred to as “S1,” “S2, and “S3”) showed that after completing the training method, each dog used the device frequently for its intended purposes and each dog learned to value it. Our research also showed that extended use of the device results in ongoing “emergent” learning on the dogs' behalf with regard to other functional relationships that exist between the choice-reinforcement button options. For example, S1 learned that pressing to say “I love you” before pressing to ask for food amplified the magnitude of the reinforcement delivered—this could be loosely characterized as an emotional manipulation. And, S1 learned that pressing to say “I want to go out. I have to potty” not only resulted in being let outside, but it commanded a higher level of urgency and therefore faster action on the part of the human. S1 also learned that “toy” and “play” are functionally related and so S1 often pressed them in combination. S1's discriminative response was a nose press, but sometimes S1 pressed the buttons using a ball or other toy held firmly in her mouth like a tool. In addition, S1 often specified which human she'd like to delivery said requested reinforcement by making eye contact with that particular person, running to that particular person, or waiting for that particular person to enter the room before making a request. S1 also often “called out” requests to persons who were not in the room but within hearing distance. S1 frequently made the same request at different times to different persons in an attempt to maximize favored reinforcement, such as requesting a second round of feeding in the morning—this too could loosely be conceptualized as fibbing. S1's overall rate of usage of the device increased noticeably when she perceived a low probability of receiving attention or reinforcement in general, such as when S1 could plainly see a person was engrossed in tasks such as using a smart phone, computer laptop, or watching TV. Finally, when receiving a finger point prompt by person, S1 would sometime refused to press the indicated button depending on her desire—this is akin to saying “yes” or “no” to reinforcement options offered. Likewise, S2 resided in a two-dog family and refused to allow the household's second dog to get near the device. S3 became distraught when the device was blocked for usage. These developing novel and creative uses of the device by three case study dogs serve as proof of the device's and the training method's operational effectiveness.